County Information Program County. Expenditures. Survey. (800)

Transcription

1 County Information Program 214 County

2 TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES COUNTY INFORMATION PROGRAM CONTRIBUTORS Authors Tim Brown Laura V. Garcia Laura Nicholes Map Designer Bruce Barr Project Manager Paul K. Emerson Editor Joel Nihlean Cover Design David Garcia Printing Raul Martinez Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the county judges, auditors, treasurers and staff from each of the participating counties for their dedication and hard work. Thank you again for your time and commitment to the 214 County. Published August 215.

3 County Information Program County Inmate Medical, Dental and Mental Health Costs By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program BACKGROUND over which counties have limited control include medical, dental and mental health costs associated with inmates in county jails. Budgeting for these costs can be particularly tricky in counties that have small jails, as even a single inmate with medical issues can greatly impact overall expenditures. However, growing medical, dental and mental health costs concern every county in the state as the costs continue to grow. IMPACT ON COUNTIES: What are the total expenditures for inmate medical, dental and mental health costs in your county jail? We clarified that respondents should [i]nclude costs associated with either a county jail or a privately run jail holding county inmates under contract with the county. The responding counties provided the following information on these expenditures: To illustrate that growth, the 19th Annual Towers Watson/National Business Group on Health Employer on Purchasing Value in Health Care found that 213 cost trend increases remained low, but still more than double the rate of inflation. While this report tracks employers health care strategies and practices rather than county expenditures for jail inmates, it serves to illustrate that health care costs continue to drive budgets. -3% % 5% 1% 15% ,,,,,,,, Total 52,983,962 45,711, Average 63, , Note that while the same number of counties responded for each year, there is a difference in which counties responded. Henderson reported expenditures for FY212 only. Potter reported expenditures for FY213 only. Excluding those two counties would result in slightly higher average expenditures of $633,537 and $547,169 for FY 212 and FY 213 respectively Standard Deviation 3,42,647 1,919, Health care trend after plan and contribution changes Consumer Price Index(CPI-U) 1 Aug. 215

4 County County Information Program Inmate Medical, Dental and Mental Health Costs (continued) 35,, The 213 population Harris 213 pop. 4,336,853 3,, 25,, 2,, 15,, estimate is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Expenditure data for 29, 21 and 211 comes from the 212 TAC County which 3,5, contained the same question. Bell 213 pop. 326,843 3,, CONCLUSION: Just as employee health 2,5, care costs continue to grow, so to do inmate 6, medical, dental and mental health care costs. Bastrop 213 pop. 75,825 5, 4, However, while businesses can choose to reduce their staffing levels, counties 3, have significantly less ability to control the number of individuals Andrews 213 pop. 16,799 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, they must cover. As a result, while there may well be short term fluctuations, both up and down, inmate medical, dental and mental health care costs can be expected to continue growing over Crane 213 pop. 4,773 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, the long term. 2

5 County Information Program County Legal Representation Costs in Child Protection Cases By Laura V. Garcia, Deputy Legislative Director BACKGROUND In many child abuse investigations, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services will seek removal of the child from the household in order to protect the child s safety. This removal, which is sought in state court, requires the appointment of counsel for the child, as well as indigent parents. 1 The costs associated with court appointed attorneys for indigent parents and their children in these child protection cases are borne entirely by counties, and the state does not provide any funding. The mandate is an increasingly significant cost driver for many Texas counties. IMPACT ON COUNTIES: What are the total county costs for court appointed attorneys in family law cases? Number of Counties 79 8 FY of Total $14,472,1.74 $14,838, Average $183,189.9 $185,48.81 It should be noted that the total statewide expenditures reported in the table above only reflect the costs incurred by 79-8 counties out of 254. Costs for some of the more populous counties are not included, so the figures do not provide a complete representation of total statewide costs. Additionally, some counties may combine these costs with those associated with appointed counsel in criminal cases. Consequently, it is difficult to ascertain exact expenditures for all counties. 1 Tex. Fam. Code and Loving County Population 95 Harris County Population mil With 254 diverse counties, ranging from just under 1 in population to over 4 mil, expenditures for court appointed attorneys in these cases vary from county to county. Population is just one factor that may affect the amount of expenditures. Other factors that can affect expenditures are the number of actual cases filed, which can sometimes increase dramatically in extraordinary circumstances; the amount of compensation for the attorneys; as well as the number of attorneys appointed in each case. $4,62,1 ( 9) $179,53 ( 9) $352, ( 9) $482,55 ( 1) $31,233 ( 9) $1,819 ( 9) $4,964,256 ( 1) $4,84,249 ( 11) $4,55,341 ( 12) $191,99 ( 1) $58,52 ( 1) Bastrop County pop. 75,825 $4,6 ( 1) Harris County pop. 4, 336,853 $193,99 ( 11) $458,531 ( 11) $9,824 ( 12) $223,737 ( 12) $6,375 ( 11) $4,72,5 ( 13) Jefferson County pop. 252,358 $88,79 ( 12) $294,972 ( 12) $47,575 ( 11) Uvalde County pop. 26,926 $295,672 ( 13) $39,666 ( 13) $64,791 ( 13) $5,94 ( 13) Dickens County pop. 2,291 Because expenditures vary from county to county, it is difficult to select a sampling of counties to illustrate any trends statewide. The expenditures from the following counties are presented as examples only. As illustrated here, some counties have experienced an increase in costs for court appointed attorneys in child protection cases, while others have seen costs hold steady or decrease. Ultimately, the cost of these attorney appointments is becoming a significant cost driver for many counties much like the expenses incurred by counties to provide court appointed counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases. It is a significant unfunded mandate for counties that will likely continue to strain county budgets in the years to come. 3

6 County County Information Program State Juvenile Justice Savings Increase County Costs By Laura Nicholes, Legislative Liaison BACKGROUND More and more juveniles are being supervised and treated in communities, and counties are increasingly feeling the pressure to help fund local programs to serve the increased number of local offenders that would have been otherwise under state jurisdiction. Counties must provide a minimum level of support for juvenile probation departments (based on their 26 expenditures for juvenile probation), however, support of community programs is a discretionary item in the county budget and contributions may increase or decrease according to the available resources and local demands placed on the county. In 27, the Legislature prohibited misdemeanor offenders from being sent to the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and data reflected an increase in funding from counties; juvenile probation departments experienced an unanticipated loss of federal grant money that helped with placement of children. Counties had to make up that loss of revenue in 28 and it continues to affect the budgets and range of services in many smaller counties. In 29, the Legislature appropriated about $5 mil in grant funds to establish new programs to serve juveniles in their home communities and divert more commitments from TYC. Since then, several state operated youth prisons have closed, and the target numbers for committing youth to state facilities has fallen to 1,1 per year. How much did the county contribute for support of community programs directed to the housing, care, school, rehabilitation and treatment of youths? SURVEY RESULTS: As mentioned above, the funding for Community Youth Programs is discretionary and fluctuates according to the demands of the county budget. Below are several examples submitted in response to the 214 County Expenditure that demonstrate noticeable variations in funding based on county resource availability and community/juvenile offender need: Bastrop County Coryell County $115,5 ( 9) $76, ( 12) $16,453 ( 9) Dickens County $4,165 ( 12) Henderson County Kaufman County Midland County Young County $145,231 ( 12) $158,43 ( 13) $138,63 ( 13) $855 ( 13) $97,696 ( 9) $ ( 12) $ ( 13) $288, ( 12) $172,812 ( 13) $35, ( 9) $11,5 ( 12) $54, ( 9) $116,953 ( 12) $11,5 ( 13) $481,297 ( 13) CONCLUSION: A pattern has been established by statewide policymakers to cut programs or funding for programs that still need to be administered (often at the local level) to accomplish an end goal of justice reforms or saving taxpayer money. While these goals may appear to save taxpayer money at the state level, the burden trickles down to the local level where property taxes are the only source of funding to make up what the state just saved. With several juvenile justice topics on the table in 215, including raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction which will increase juvenile caseloads and require more specialized community treatment and programming for older, higher-need offenders, this will continue to be a category of expenditures to monitor. 4

7 County Information Program County County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals! By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program BACKGROUND The economic impact of mental illness on state and local governments in Texas is believed to be more than $1.5 Local Mental Health Authority Service Area Dallam Hartley Oldham Sherman Moore Potter Hansford HutchinsonRoberts Carson Ochiltree Gray July 27 Lipscomb Hemphill Wheeler bil per year. 1 Deaf Smith Parmer Castro Randall Swisher Armstrong Briscoe Donley Hall Collingsworth Childress Hardeman More than 4.3 mil Texans, including 1.2 mil children, live with some form of mental health disorder. Of this number, 1.5 mil Texans cannot function at work, school or in the community due to their illness. During the last 1 years, reduced state funding has eroded Texas ability to care for patients with mental disorders. As the availability of services declined, these patients, insured and uninsured alike, had to seek care in hospital emergency rooms. Texas prison and jail systems also warehouse mentally ill patients who are waiting for a psychiatric bed or community help to become available. 2 El Paso Hudspeth Culberson Jeff Davis Presidio Bailey Lamb Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger Foard Wichita Clay Lamar Cochran Hockley Montague Baylor Archer Cooke Grayson Red River Lubbock Crosby Dickens King Knox Fannin Bowie Delta Franklin Denton Collin Hopkins Titus Yoakum Terry Jack Morris Lynn Garza Kent Stonewall Haskell Throckmorton Wise Cass Young Hunt Camp Rockwall Rains Marion Dallas Gaines Stephens Wood Dawson Borden Scurry Fisher Jones Palo Pinto Parker Tarrant Upshur Shackleford Harrison Kaufman Van Zandt Gregg Eastland Hood Johnson Ellis Smith Andrews Martin Howard Mitchell Nolan Taylor Callahan Erath Somervell Henderson Rusk Panola Hill Navarro Cherokee Loving Coke Bosque Shelby Winkler Ector Midland Glasscock Comanche Anderson Sterling Runnels Coleman Brown Hamilton Freestone NacogdochesSan Ward Limestone Crane Mills McLennan Angelina Augustine Tom Reeves Upton Reagan Concho Coryell Leon Houston Sabine Irion Green McCulloch Falls Lampasas Newton San Saba Trinity Bell Robertson Madison Jasper Polk Tyler Pecos Schleicher Menard Burnet Milam Walker Crockett Mason Llano Brazos San Williamson Grimes Burleson Jacinto Sutton Kimble Montgomery Hardin Gillespie Blanco Lee Terrell Travis Washington Liberty Orange Hays Bastrop Kerr Jefferson Edwards Kendall Austin Val Verde Waller Harris Brewster Comal Caldwell Fayette Real Chambers Bandera Colorado Fort Bend Bexar Guadalupe Gonzales Lavaca Galveston Galveston Kinney Uvalde Medina Wharton Brazoria Wilson De Witt Frio Atascosa Karnes Jackson Matagorda Zavala Maverick Victoria Goliad Calhoun Dimmit La Salle McMullen Bee Refugio Live Oak Aransas Local Mental Health Authority Community Center Webb Zapata Duval Jim Hogg Jim Wells Brooks San Patricio Nueces Kleberg Kenedy More recently, the Texas Legislature found the means to increase state funding during the 83rd legislative session. Starr Hidalgo Willacy Cameron Local Mental Health Authorities in Texas In 1965, the state Legislature passed the Texas Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act, which established the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR) and authorized local entities to assume responsibility for the administration of MHMR services. The act facilitated a partnership among the state, local agencies and the federal government. At the time, the federal government provided more than 5 percent of funding for the new local centers. Today, there are 39 local MHMR centers, also called Community Centers or Local Mental Health Authorities (LMHAs), in Texas providing services in all 254 counties to residents who have serious and persistent mental illnesses, intellectual and developmental disabilities or substance abuse disorders. Each MHMR center is a unit of local government with its own governing board representing local entities such as counties, cities, hospital districts and school districts. Counties have the option of providing funds directly to the local MHMR center when budgets allow. Unsurprisingly, the level of county funding to local centers fluctuates from year to year as county budget priorities shift. Local MHMR centers also receive funding from the state and other sources. The 27 and 29 Legislatures appropriated mils of dollars each biennium toward redesigning the way mental health crisis services are delivered at the local level. However, as of FY 211, local funds accounted for 13 percent of total LMHA funding. 3 As more consumers are served through increased state funding, the amount needed to continue serving the mental health needs of communities has also increased. 5

8 County County Information Program County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals! (continued) While the majority of the need appears to be in the adult population, mental health disorders also affect Texas children. 44 percent of all young people sent to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department in FY 211 had a need for treatment by a licensed or specially trained provider for a mental health related issue and 75 percent of all young people sent to the Texas Juvenile Justice Department in FY 211 had a need for treatment by a licensed or specially trained provider for alcohol or other drug dependency or abuse. 4 Providing mental health services is very costly for the state, with total state funding in 29 reaching $763 mil. 5 During the 82nd legislative session, the Legislature increased overall funding for mental health by $52.2 mil and increased General Revenue funding for mental health by $46.6 mil in order to maintain levels of capacity. 6 The Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature states, Despite this increase in funding, there are still significant mental health needs in our state that must be addressed involving capacity and access to services, service delivery, outcomes and costly infrastructure within our state hospital system. The two following charts show the growing need among the adult and child populations respectively WAITING LIST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, ADULTS 76% % % % % % 3% 24% 29% % Total Number on Waiting List Percent on the Waiting List Who Are Under-Served (Waiting for More Intensive Services) WAITING LIST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES, CHILDREN 76% % % % % % % 24% % 1 Total Number on Waiting List Percent on the Waiting List Who Are Under-Served (Waiting for More Intensive Services) Note that while the percentage of those on the waiting list who are under-served has decreased dramatically, the actual numbers have risen dramatically for adults, as seen below in the third chart % 6

9 County Information Program County NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE WAITING LIST FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Adults Children In 213, the 83rd legislative session produced significant gains for mental health and substance abuse care in the state. The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) budget increased to $2.6 bil (All Funds) for the public mental health system, of which $1.7 bil is state General Revenue. 71 IMPACT ON COUNTIES: At the local level, historically low state funding for mental health over an extended period resulted in a lack of sufficient beds at state hospitals. As a consequence, the Harris County Jail became the de facto largest state mental hospital in Texas. 11 Today, an increasing number of defendants with severe mental illness need court-ordered services at the state mental hospitals. A commitment to a state hospital by a criminal court is known as a forensic commitment. Unfortunately, the number of forensic commitments often exceeds the number of forensic beds, and defendants are forced to wait in the county jails often for months until a bed becomes available. 12 SURVEY RESULTS What was the county s total financial support to the local Mental Health/Mental Retardation (MHMR) centers? 25,, $24,526, $24,368, ,, This welcome attention ends a decade-long period of limited funding, and may move Texas out of the bottom rankings for per capita behavioral health spending for Texas to maximize progress toward a healthier and more productive population, this new level of funding must be maintained by future legislatures. 1 Katharine Ligon of the Center for Public Policy Priorities. 15,, 1,, 5,, $2,21,875.7 $295,5.9 $297, Number of counties: 83 $2,236, Number of counties: 82 Total Average Standard Deviation Note: There are a different number of counties responding for each year. For this question, the reason is simply that one county, Henderson, provided expenditures for 212 but not for 213. As can be seen, standard deviation far exceeded the average for either year; it is provided as an indicator of how different expenditures are from county to county as a result of which it is impossible to pick out a typical county. With that caveat in mind, expenditures from the following counties are presented as examples only. 7

10 County County Information Program County Jails are Not Mental Hospitals! (continued) $265, ( 9) $265, ( 11) $1,25 ( 1) $ ( 9) $23,397,854 ( 9) $8,855 ( 9) In most of the counties above, expenditures were subject to sudden changes from year to year. For example, Borden, the smallest county in the table by population, had significant spikes, both up and down, in expenditures. At the other end of the population spectrum, Harris experienced multi-mil dollar adjustments from year-to-year although these were relatively small percentage changes. CONCLUSION While the state made some improvements in funding during 213, this followed an extended period of funding that could be described as lackluster at best. As a consequence, Texas currently lacks the infrastructure to deal with the growing number of adults and children who need mental health services. The state s recent funding increase has offset this to a small extent, but the depth of the problem ensures that it will be years before all of the mentally ill inmates can be moved out of county jails. $22,862,844 ( 1) $265, ( 1) $8, ( 9) $8, ( 11) $8, ( 1) $7,896 ( 1) Bell County pop. 326,843 Bastrop County pop. 75,825 $7,5 ( 11) Andrews County pop. 16,799 $1,25 ( 11) $265, ( 12) $ ( 12) $22,34,752 ( 11) $6,422 ( 12) Borden County pop. 637 $2,77,77 ( 12) $5,175 ( 12) $ ( 13) $2,264,411 ( 13) Harris County pop. 4, 336,853 $265, ( 13) $6,944 ( 13) $9, ( 13) session by addressing the need for greater state funding; state funding for mental health services must continue to grow to meet not only current demands but also increased future demands. The number of forensic beds must be increased so that inmates with mental health needs can be moved from the county jails to those facilities where they can get the help they require county jails should not be used as de facto state mental hospitals. 1 Mental Health Funding Texas Medical Association, accessed September 29, 214, 2 Ibid. 3 Public Consulting Group, Analysis of the Texas Public Behavioral Health System: Report to the State of Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Department of State Health Services, June, 212, p. 9 in Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 212, p Texas Facts, Mental Health Connection of Tarrant County, accessed September 29, 214, 5 Public Consulting Group, Analysis of the Texas Public Behavioral Health System: Report to the State of Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Department of State Health Services, June, 212, p. 115 in Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 212, p House Bill 1, 82nd Regular Session, 211 (Pitts/Ogden). 7 Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 212, p Recreated using data found in Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 212, pp Numbers calculated by TAC using data found in Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature, December 212, pp Ligon, p Amanda Jones, Mental Health Services in Texas: Reforming a Crisis-driven System, MS PowerPoint presentation accessed September 29, 214, at org/13-mental%2health%2services%2in%2tx-%2reforming%2a%2crisis%2 Driven%2System.pdf. 12 Jones, p. 5. And that goal will require future legislators continue to carry the baton passed during the 83rd legislative 8

11 County Information Program County What Counties are Spending on Information Technology By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program BACKGROUND For the 214 County, we added a new question, seeking to better understand information technology expenditures. Unlike previous versions of this survey, each question asked for expenditures for only two years, fiscal year 213 and fiscal year 214 in this case. Eighty-three counties replied to the survey with total information technology expenditures for fiscal year 213. One of those responding counties, Henderson, provided data for fiscal year 212 but not for fiscal year 213. What were your total Information Technology expenditures including website, , hardware, software and personnel? As a group, the 83 responding counties saw their average information technology expenditures increase 1.1 percent from fiscal year 213 to fiscal year 214. Given that the data only covered two years, no trend could be determined. While expenditures remained fairly stable over the period, it seems reasonable to expect these expenditures generally to climb over the coming years. One side effect of using a logarithmic scale is that relatively minor year-to-year fluctuations become more difficult to see in the chart. Using a logarithmic scale allows us to include the average annual expenditures for all county brackets in a single chart. Otherwise we d have to use two charts as the average annual expenditures for the smallest counties (around $35, per year) are so much lower than the values for the largest counties (over $55 mil per year). At each step or line as height increases in this chart, the value increases by a factor of ten (for example: 1, 1, 1 rather than 1, 2, 3). Smallest Counties Bracket E: Average expenditures for information technology decreased 1.7 percent from $35,686 in fiscal year 212 to $35,92 in fiscal year 213 in counties with less than 1, residents. Average Annual on Information Technology ,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, $35,686 $35,92 1-1, E $166,22 $168,167 1,1-25, D $61,16 $689,148 25,1-1, C $2,64,889 $3,121,56 1,1-1,, B Counties Grouped by 213 Population Estimate $56,425,616 $55,64,418 >1,,1 A 9

12 County County Information Program What Counties are Spending on Information Technology (continued) Small Counties Bracket D: for information technology in counties of between 1, and 25, increased 1.2 percent from $166,22 to $168,167. Mid-Sized Counties Bracket C: Counties with populations between 25, and 1, saw their average expenditures increase 12.9 percent from $61,16 to $689,148. Large Urban Counties Bracket B: the largest percentage increase, 19.8 percent, occurred in counties with populations between 1, and one mil as average expenditures rose from $2.6 mil to $3.1 mil. While this bracket has the largest percentage change in average annual expenditures, no trend can be determined given that the data only covers two years. capabilities can come from both federal and state government through both legislation and rule-making. Along with these mandates, pressure to enhance technical capacity can come from people residing in the county, or even those who reside elsewhere but none-theless access county services. CONCLUSION: Annual technology costs appear to be fairly stable over the two years for which we have data with fluctuations of less than 2 percent for any bracket of counties. However, given the impossibility of determining trends from only two years of expenditures, it remains to be seen whether or not that stability continues as costs are expected to rise in the future. Largest Urban Counties Bracket A: Only one county, Harris, of more than a mil population responded to our 214 County Expenditure. Their expenditures on information technology fell from $56.4 mil to $55.1 mil a drop of 2.4 percent. While a two-year period is far too short a time frame from which to determine any trends, there is no doubt that counties will continue to see expenses for information technology. From Moore s Law (an observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years), one expects constant improvement in technical capabilities. However, it also points to constant obsolescence as hardware that was state of the art a few years ago is far too slow to run today s software. Similarly, technical personnel need to constantly upgrade their skills just to keep their heads above water. All of which results in continuing expenses for counties just to stay current. Attempts to actually expand a county s technical capabilities via hardware, software or personnel result in increased costs. Mandates to expand technical 1

13 County Information Program County Will Juvenile Probation Costs Continue to Trend Higher? By Laura Nicholes, Legislative Liaison BACKGROUND Juvenile probation services are administered at the local level and must adhere to standards set by the state that address constitutional protections and the well-being of juveniles, as well as the safety of those working with juveniles. Services are administered locally, with state oversight, and funded by a combination of both state appropriations and local funds. In addition, various grant opportunities exist to provide a third source of funding for juvenile probation. In 1995, state reforms came with a mandate that county governments fund local juvenile probation departments with, at a minimum, the amount they provided in In 26, that floor-level was increased to the amount appropriated in 26. County support may increase or decrease according to the county s available resources and other local demands, but it cannot dip below the amount funded in 26. In 27 and 28, county juvenile probation departments experienced a loss in Federal Title IV-E Foster Care administrative grant funding and struggled to fill the unanticipated gaps in their budgets. Also in 27, the Texas Legislature prohibited juvenile misdemeanor offenders from being placed in the Texas Youth Commission (TYC). As a result, juvenile probation caseloads and county funding requirements increased. In 29, the Legislature directed juvenile departments to further curb the number of offenders committed to TYC by supervising them and providing them treatment in their home communities. (It should be noted that the Legislature provided grant funding for counties demonstrating a plan for new treatment and rehabilitative TYC diversion programs). SURVEY RESULTS: What were the county s total expenditures for juvenile probation (do not include grant money or state appropriations)? Statewide, approximately 7 percent of funding for juvenile departments currently comes from county general funds. A pattern of increased county taxpayer funding of local juvenile probation departments has been established as a result of policymaking at the statewide level. On the 214 County Expenditure, 82 counties reported spending $119,178, on the operations of juvenile probation departments in 212. On the same survey, 83 counties reported expenditures of $127,31,76 for juvenile probation in 213. Although this represents an increase of more than $8 mil dollars in one year, $2.9 mil of that increase occurred in Ector County, which was unable to provide their 212 data. Thus, 82 of the 254 counties in Texas increased expenditures on juvenile probation by $5.1 mil in a single year! CONCLUSION: We can expect the Legislature to continue to focus on the statewide budget and initiatives that will impact county expenditures for juvenile justice, courts, jails, detention centers and local service delivery systems. One initiative on the table during the 84th Session has been raising the age of juvenile jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years of age. Should the state decide to raise the age and place 17-year-olds under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system, there will be a shift in caseloads from criminal district courts to juvenile courts and a shift from adult probation caseloads to juvenile probation caseloads. An increase in caseloads and population in juvenile detention facilities would require additional staffing and an anticipated higher level of supervision, treatment and diversion programs for older defendants. However, raising the age of jurisdiction from 17 to 18 years old would have a positive impact on county jail operations and the challenges presented by housing a population of inmates that the Texas Family Code and federal codes still require to be accommodated as juveniles. 11

14 County County Information Program Fuel Costs Severely Impact Counties By Tim Brown, Senior Analyst, County Information Program BACKGROUND The sudden spike in fuel prices during 28 made many people aware of how county services, like many businesses, are dependent on the cost of commodities such as oil and construction supplies. While per gallon fuel costs have retreated to some extent, they remain highly variable and counties are still forced to spend much more for fuel than in the past. No additional property tax revenue. Severance taxes collected by the state from the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale and other parts of Texas continue to swell state coffers. 12 mil $ mil 8 mil 6 mil 4 mil 2 mil Rainy Day Fund, Historic and Projected Balances $8.46 $8.48 However, counties do not collect severance taxes. They collect property taxes, which may allow counties to raise additional revenue but only if they are willing or even able to raise their property tax rates. State law requires counties to lower their effective property tax rate when total county property values increase due to higher valuation for mineral properties. (The effective tax rate is, basically, the rate counties can adopt to bring in the same property taxes as they levied in the prior year.) As a result, only by adopting a tax rate higher than the effective tax rate (which requires a commissioners court vote to raise taxes ) can the county obtain additional tax revenue with which they can pay salaries for additional deputies and other county services required locally by the expanding commercial activity. Plus costs rise faster than inflation. In addition, counties not only purchase gasoline and diesel for patrol cars, road graders and other vehicles, they also purchase other petroleum products such as asphalt. PPI-ASPHALT COMPARED TO CPI-ALL ITEMS From the Bureau of Labor Statistics 3 25 End of Feb. 215 Aug. 31, 215 Aug. 31, Note: Balances for future dates are projected. 15 PPI: 29.4% CPI: 26.6% 2 mil 15 mil $14.1 $16.1 $ mil mil PPI - Asphalt At Refinery CPI- All Items Curent budget cycle budget cycle Note: The current cap is 1 percent of this two-year cycle s budget (using a certain measurement that omits about $6 bil of spending.) This chart compares the change in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for asphalt to the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from 23 to 213; the PPI from prior years is not available for asphalt. Sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Legislative Budget Board 12

15 County Information Program County $3.5 $3. $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. ANNUAL GASOLINE AND DIESEL PRICES IN GULF COAST STATES IN 23 DOLLARS From the U.S. Energy Information Agency Gulf Coast Includes: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas. Gasoline: 78.9% Diesel: 18.5% Retail Gasoline - Adjusted for Inflation Diesel - Adjusted for Inflation IMPACT ON COUNTIES: To find out how much counties have been spending on fuel, we asked them, for Fiscal Years 212 and 213, What are your total county fuel costs? Reported total fuel expenditures followed a similar pattern to that shown in the previous chart by decreasing slightly from FY 212 to FY 213. The responding counties provided the following information on expenditures: Number of Counties FY of Total $65,62, $62,749,48.11 Average $79, $756,16.97 While not as dramatic as the 29 percent increase shown on the previous page, the cost of gasoline and diesel has also risen dramatically as seen in the following chart. It shows the change in prices for these commodities, after adjusting for inflation, from 23 to 213. Prices for both commodities rose over the period; however, diesel prices rose significantly more than gasoline. Of course, overall fuel expenditures can increase even when unit prices are decreasing, since total fuel costs are a function of both price and volume. The chart gives some sense of the difficulty posed for county officials who attempted to budget their fuel costs months before their fiscal years began: large increases occurred from 27-8, 29-1 and while a rapid drop in price occurred over Standard Deviation $2,75,36.75 $2,532, Note that while the same number of counties responded for each year, there is a difference in which counties responded. Henderson County provided a response for FY 212 only while Potter County provided expenditures for FY 213 only. Without the expenditure data from those two counties, the average expenditures would still increase for both years ($65,3, in FY 212 and $62,252, in FY 213). As the table indicates, standard deviation far exceeded the average for either year by a factor of almost four to one; it is provided as an indicator of how different expenditures are from county to county, making it impossible to pick out a typical county. Keeping that caveat in mind, expenditures from the following counties are presented as examples only. County Population (213) Harris 4,336,853 $22,599,291 $17,875,214 $2,528,358 $25,164,431 $23,18,388 Bell 326,843 $948,823 $1,14,723 $1,47,749 $1,452,885 $1,425,6 Bastrop 75,825 $875,976 $75,514 $958,819 $1,79,128 $585,371 Andrews 16,799 $41,562 $333,22 $364,456 $264,853 $443,618 Borden 637 $139, $99,196 $116, $111,986 $19,421 13

16 County County Information Program Fuel Costs Severely Impact Counties (continued) The 213 population estimate is from the U.S. Census Bureau. Expenditure data for 29, 21 and 211 comes from the 212 TAC County, which contained the same question. CONCLUSION Fuel costs can severely impact counties. The need to budget for gasoline and diesel purchases can be problematic in that these costs are highly variable. Counties can get around this problem to some extent by contracting to purchase these commodities in advance to lock in what appears to be a reasonable price. Yet, the chart above shows that prices have fallen several times since 23. Therefore, these contracts need to be flexible to prevent the county from overspending during times of falling prices. In addition, counties need to plan for possible sudden increases in volume. For example, sheriff patrols may need to increase mid-year in response to a sudden influx of businesses and people. When that influx includes heavy trucks, as happens during a shale boom, road crews will need additional supplies of asphalt to maintain the roads. While counties did not report expenditures for asphalt on this survey, higher unit prices, when combined with increasing numbers of both passenger vehicles and heavy trucks on the roads, ensure that counties are spending more and more for road maintenance. 14

17 County Information Program County 15

18 County County Information Program 16

19

20 P.O. Box 2131 Austin, Texas (512) (8) county.org